SMT. SAVITAversusMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

                         [2014) 3 S.C.R. 810

A                           SMT. SAVITA
                                 v.
                      BINDAR SINGH & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4001 of 2014)
                          MARCH 25, 2014
B
                   [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND
                 PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
        MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

C      s. 166 -- Fatal motor accident - Compensation --Tribunal
  and High Court ignoring to award compensation towards future
  prospects -- Awarding meager amounts under heads --"loss
  of consortium" and "funeral expenses"- Held: At the time of
  fixing such compensation, court should not succumb to
o niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation -- It is the
  duty of court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on
  account of accident with compensation so that the injured or
  dependants should not face vagaries of life on account of
  discontinuance of income earned by victim -- Therefore, it will
E be the bounden duty of Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair
  and reasonable compensation considering the price index
  prevailing at the moment and judging the situation prevailing
  -- Compensation under the head "future prospects of
  deceased" to be calculated by adding 30% to monthly income
F and by deducting 113 towards personal expenses --
  Compensation under the heads "loss of consortium" and
  "funeral expenses" enhanced -- Interest to be paid @ 8%
  instead of 6% awarded by Tribunal from the date of
  application till payment -- Interest.

G       In a motor accident claim arising out of the death of
    a 26 year old victim, the Tribunal taking the notional
    annual income at Rs. 36,0001-, applying the multiplier of
    17 and deducting one third as personal expenses of

H                                 810
       SMT. SAVITA v. BINDAR SINGH & ORS.           811

deceased, allowed the compensation of Rs. 4,06,0001-       A
besides Rs. 50001- for cremation, Rs. 50001- for loss of
estate and Rs. 10,0001- as loss of consortiums with 6%
interest. The High Court diminished the appeal of
claimant.
                                                           B
    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 In view of the decisions of this Court in
Santosh Devi as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, it is the
duty of the court to fix a just compensation. At the time
of fixing such compensation, the court should not C
succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just
compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of
the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on
account of the accident with the compensation so that
the injured or the dependants should not face the D
vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the
income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair
and reasonable compensation considering the price
index prevailing at the moment and judging the situation E
prevailing at that point of time with reference to the
settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing
so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the
claimant in the application for compensation with the
prime object to assess the award based on the principle F
that the award should be just, equitable, fair and
reasonable compensation. [para 6] [817-E-H; 818-A]

     Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &
Ors. 2012 (3) SCR 1178 = (2012) 6 SCC 421; and Rajesh
vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 - relied on.          G

    1.2 In the instant case, the Tribunal and the High
Court have failed to consider the fact-situation, and
without taking any pragmatic view and further without
considering the price-index prevailing at the moment,      H
    812    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 3 S.C.R.

A they assessed the compensation ignoring the principle
  laid down by this Court in the recent decisions. The
  award. suffers from proper assessment of compensation
  awarded by the Tribunal, and granted by the High Court
  on the conventional heads, i.e., 'loss of consortium' to the
a spouse, 'future prospects of the deceased' and further
  the sum awarded under the head 'funeral expenses', as
  the same cannot be said to be a just compensation. There
  should have been an endeavour on the part of the
  Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation
c factor. [para 7) [818-8-E]
         Smt. Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009
    (5) SCR 1098 = (2009) 6 SCC 121- referred to

      1.3 Accordingly, as has been pointed out by this
D Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, this Court awards the
  compensation under the head 'loss of consortium' to the
  spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and
  funeral expenses as 1,00,000/- and 25,000/- respectively.
  [para 7) [818-E-F]
E
       1.4 Further, since the Tribunal as well as the High
  Court lost its sight to hold that the victim could have had
  future prospects with regard to the amounts he used to
  earn, the notional income also needs to be increased by
  at least 30% and thereby the claimant is entitled to get
F the benefit of 900/- being the future prospects; the said
  amount should be added to the notional income of the
  victim i.e. Rs. 3000/-. Deducting one third of 3,900/- and
  applying the multiplier at 17, the amount of compensation
  to be paid would be 5,30,400/-. Thus, the claimant/
G appellant is entitled to a total sum of 6,55,400/- plus
  interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of
  the claim petition till the date of payment as
  compensation. [para 8 and 10] [819-A-D; 820-C-D]

H
        SMT. SAVITA v. BINDAR SINGH & ORS.                   813


                      Case Law Reference:                           A
    2009 (5) SCR 1098          referred to              para 3.4
     2012 (3) SCR 1178         relied on                para 4
    (2013) 9 sec 54            relied on                para 4      B
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4001 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2013 of the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in AFO No. 96 of 2013.        c
    Neha Kedia (for Rohit Kumar Singh) for the Appellant.

   A.K. Kaul, A.K. Raina (for Binay Kumar Das) for the
Respondents.
                                                                    D
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 16,
2013 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand affirming the           E
award dated December 3, 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No. 75/2011. The Tribunal directed the respondent - Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. - to pay a sum of 4,28,000/- to the claimant.
Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal         F
has been filed by the appellant-claimant.

    3. Briefly the facts of this case are as follows:

     3.1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on
November 26, 2010 du~ to rash and negligent driving by the          G
driver of a truck bearing registration No.HR-56-6047 between
Ram Nagar and Dhandhera. The claim petition was filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation against the respondents.
                                                                    H
    814       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A        3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant/claimant asked for
    compensation of 20,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of
    12% per annum from the respondents/opposite parties. The
    parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal and the following
    issues were framed:-
B
          "1. Whether on dated 26.11.201 O the motor cycle of the
          deceased        Sandeep       Chauhan        Chasis    no.
          MD2DSPAZZTPE51258, Engine no. IBVBTF91396
          Model Discover, Time: at about 10 PM at Malvia Chowk,
          then a driver of Truck bearing registration No. HR-56-6047
c         brought from the front side with high speed and careless
          and hit the motor cycle going on the side, due to which
          Sandeep Chauhan received many injuries and due to that
          injuries and the motor cycle was damaged and the injured
          Sandeep Chauhan was died to while taking him to the
D         hospital? (sic)

          2. Whether the motor used while accidence was having
          insurance, D.L., Fitness Registration etc. and was
          permitted to use?(sic)
E
          3. Whether the petition of the claimants is contaminated
          from the required facts?

          4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If
          so, to what amount and from whom?"
F
        3.3 The Tribunal held that on November 26, 2010, Driver
  Binder Singh while driving Truck No. HR-56-6047 with speed
  and carelessness in the centre of the road, hit the motorcycle
  of Sandeep Chauhan, as a result of which Sandeep Chauhan
G was seriously injured and subsequently succumbed to his
  injuries. The issues were also discussed by the Tribunal which
  t!Jrther held that accidental vehicle was permitted to be driven
  with legal and effective documents and driving licenses.

          3.4 On the issue of compensation the Tribunal after taking
H                  I
        SMT. SAVITA v. BINDAR SINGH & ORS.                  815
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
into account all the facts and materials placed before it, came A
to the conclusion that since the claimant could not prove that
the deceased was getting 7 ,0001- per month as salary the
Tribunal following the principle enunciated in an order of the
Uttarakhand High Court, held that notional annual income of the
deceased was 36,000/-. The Tribunal also followed the principle B
laid down in Smt. Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport
 Corporation 1 and held that one third share from the notional
income of the deceased should be deducted as his personal
expenses to calculate compensation on the basis of the
 notional annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal further c
 held that the deceased's father, mother and wife were
 dependents on the deceased and they should be treated as
 dependents of the deceased. The multiplier of 17 was fixed by
 the Tribuna! considering the age of the deceased who was 26
 years of age at the time of the accident. After taking into
                                                                  0
 account all these aspects, Tribunal came to the conclusion and
 assessed the compensation amount at 4,08,000/- and further
 granted 5,000/- for cremation, 5,000/- for loss of estate and
 10,000/- for loss of consortium and thereby the compensation
 amount was determined at 4,28,000/- and also directed that E
 interest to be paid at the rate of 6% per annum on the total
 compensation amount from the date of filing of the petition till
 the date of decision.

      3.5 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the High
Court. The High Court dismissed the said appeal on the ground       F
that there was no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal.
Hence this appeal has been filed.

     4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has
been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that      G
the said award is wrong on the ground that a salary certificate
has been produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not
accepted the same without any reason. She further submitted
that the compensation which has been granted by the Tribunal
1.   (2009) s sec 121.                                              H
    816       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A and affirmed by the High Court does not include the future
  prospects which should have been added to the claim and
  further the deduction with regard to the personal expenses could
  not have been made more than one tenth of the total salary
  received by the victim. In support of such contention, she relied
B upon Sanfosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &
  Ors. 2 and further submitted that compensation under the head
  'loss of consortium' has not been properly assessed by the said
  Tribunal which has been assessed by this Court in Rajesh vs.
  Rajbir Singh 3 and the compensation under the said head
c should have been awarded for a sum of 1,00,000/-. She further
  submitted that the compensation under the head 'funeral
  expenses' should have been granted as 25,000/- and in support
  of her such contention, she relied upon the aforementioned
  decisions. On the contrary, it has been stated on behalf of the
  respondents that in Sar/a Verma (supra), the principles laid
0
  down by this Court have been followed by the Tribunal and
  therefore there is no reason to interfere with the award passed
  by the Tribunal and the appeal dismissed by the High Court.

          5. This Court in Santosh Devi (supra), held as follows:
E
          "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale
          for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment
          in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-
          employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for
F         annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the
          actual income at the time of death and a departure from
          this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional
          cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will
          be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income
          of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on
G
          a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc.,
          would remain the same throughout his life.


    2.   c2012) a sec 421.
H   3.   c2013) g sec 54.
          SMT. SAVITA v. BINDAR SINGH & ORS.                    817
            . [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
    15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across        A
    the board. It does not make any distinction between rich
    and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices
    which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the
    rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who
    get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected          B
    people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate
    additional income necessary for sustaining their families.

    ***                           ***                     ***

    18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the              C
    observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of
    Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay
    down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the
    income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid
    fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a         D
    person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages
    will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over
    a period of time and if he I she becomes victim of accident
    then the same formula deserves to be applied for
    calculating the amount of compensation."                          E

     6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh
Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are
of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just
compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court
                                                                      F
should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just
compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court
to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the
accident with the compensation so that the injured or the
dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of
discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore,         G
it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just,
equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the
situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the
settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the
Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the        H
    818      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [20141 3 S.C.R.

A application for compensation with the prime object to assess
  the award based on the principle that the award should be just,
  equitable, fair and reasonable compensation.

        7. In the instant case, it appears that the Tribunal and the
  High Court have also failed to consider the fact-situation of this
8
  case, without taking any pragmatic view and further without
  considering the price-index prevailing at the moment, assessed
  the compensation ignoring the principle laid down by this Court
  in the recent decisions (see: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra)
  as also Santosh Devi (supra)) and without revisiting the
C present situation, came to the conclusion and awarded the total
  compensation for a sum of 4,28,000/-. In our opinion, such
  award suffers from proper assessment of compensation
  awarded by the Tribunal, and High Court on the conventional
  heads, i.e., 'loss of consortium' to the spouse, 'future prospects
D of the deceased' and further the sum awarded under the head
  'funeral expenses', cannot be said to be a just compensation.
  In our opinion, there should have been an endeavour on the part
  of the Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation
  factor and further they should have considered the amounts fixed
E by the court several decades ago on such heads. Accordingly,
  as has been pointed out by this Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh
  (supra), we hold that the compensation under the head 'loss of
  consortium' to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to
  children and funeral expenses amounts should have been
F awarded under such heads, that is, for 1,00,000/- and 25,000/
  - respectively and we award such compensation under the said
  heads. So far as the head of 'salary' is concerned, we do not
  express any opinion since we have found that the appellant
  could not prove the salary certificate and for such reason, we
G do not intend to interfere with the opinion expressed by the
  Tribunal on the established principle of notional income and
  accordingly, we do not want to disturb the said notional income
  while calculating the total compensation in favour of the
  appellant.
H
       SMT. SAVITA v. BINDAR SINGH & ORS.                     819
           [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
     8. We have failed to understand why the Tribunal as well         A
as the High Court lost its sight to hold that the victim could have
had future prospects with regard to the amounts the victim used
to earn during his life-time? Therefore, the notional income also
needs to be increased by at least 30% and thereby the claimant
is entitled to get the benefit of 9001- being the future prospects;   B
the said amount should be added to the notional income of the
victim. Therefore, it appears that the total salary along with
future prospects of the victim should have been calculated at
3,000/- plus 900/- amounting to 3,900/- per month. The total
deduction on personal expenses, in our opinion, should have           c
been one third of 3,900/- amounting to 1,300/-. Therefore, salary
after deduction would come to 2,600/- and the multiplier should
be applied at 17, as has been done correctly by the Tribunal
after taking into account the age of the victim. In this process,
the total amount of compensation to be paid would be 2,600 x
                                                                      0
 17 x 12 amounting to 5,30,400/-.

    9. We modify and reassess the compensation in
accordance with the Calculation Table set out hereunder:

                      CALCULATION TABLE                               E
Salary (Since it is not proved       Rs. 3,000/- per month
sufficiently as per the order of
the Tribunal)
Future prospects (at the rate of    (30% of Rs.3,000= 900/-]          F
30% as prayed for) (as per           Salary is (3,000+ 900) =
para 8)                              Rs. 3,900/-
Deduction towards personal           1/3rd of Rs. 3,900 = Rs.
expenses (as per Schedule II)        1,300/-
Total salary after adding future     Rs.3,900 - Rs.1,300 =            G
prospects and deducting personal Rs.2,600/-
expenses
Multiplier i.e. 17 (as per Schedule Rs.2,600 x 17 x 12 =
II and Section 166)                  Rs.5,30,400/-
                                                                      H
    820    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                ·[2014] 3 S.C.R.

A   Total amount of compensation        Rs. 5,30,400/-
    (as per para 8)
    Compensation under the head of       Rs. 1,00,000/-
    "loss of consortium"
    (as per para 7)
B   Compensation under the head of      Rs. 25,000/-
    'funeral expense' (as per para 7)
    Grand Total                         Rs. 6,55,400/-
        10. The order of the High Court and Tribunal is modified.
C We direct that the claimant/appellant is entitled to a sum of
  6,55,400/- plus interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date
  of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment as
  compensation. Accordingly, we direct that the enhanced amount
  should be paid to the appellant after deducting the amount
D already paid, within a period of four weeks from date. For the
  reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed.

    R.P.                                  Appeal partly allowed.